Governance by retribution. What could go wrong?

[Praxas]

do you think the rich have an unlimited duty to fund every social program that the socialist left wants to impose? or do you think there is a limit to how much handouts should be given

I think you shouldn’t give tax cuts to the wealthy and then turn around and say you need to cut benefits to the poor, disabled and/orelderly because you say you don’t have enough money.

 

[TurtleDude]

I think you shouldn’t give tax cuts to the wealthy and then turn around and say you need to cut benefits to the poor, disabled and/orelderly because you say you don’t have enough money.

well many of use voted for Trump because we are tired of paying so much in taxes. I don't believe the rich have much of a duty to pay for people who make poor life choices and then demand others fund their existence. Now I believe wealthy people should voluntarily help others. but I tire of poverty pimps who use faux claims of altruism to gan power

 

[Praxas]

well many of use voted for Trump because we are tired of paying so much in taxes. I don't believe the rich have much of a duty to pay for people who make poor life choices and then demand others fund their existence. Now I believe wealthy people should voluntarily help others. but I tire of poverty pimps who use faux claims of altruism to gan power

I tire of the government using money for a lot of things I disagree with but I’m not going to ask that the poor have their benefits cut so I can go on an extra vacation. That is what you support.

 

[TurtleDude]

I tire of the government using money for a lot of things I disagree with but I’m not going to ask that the poor have their benefits cut so I can go on an extra vacation. That is what you support.

I think people who earn the wealth should have more say in how their money is used than other voters. I support freedom, you support government coercion

 

[Praxas]

I think people who earn the wealth should have more say in how their money is used than other voters. I support freedom, you support government coercion

I support taking care of the poor, you support spitting and stepping on them for your own personal gain. There is a special spot in hell for people that think like you.

 

[TurtleDude]

I support taking care of the poor, you support spitting and stepping on them for your own personal gain. There is a special spot in hell for people that think like you.

you're lying. Like many big government worshippers, you cannot understand that me opposing government coercion and forced income redistribution necessarily means I have to be in favor of crapping on the truly needy. To you, only government matters and that the concept of private charity does not register in the mind of a collectivist.

 

[Ikari]

you're lying. Like many big government worshippers, you cannot understand that me opposing government coercion and forced income redistribution necessarily means I have to be in favor of crapping on the truly needy. To you, only government matters and that the concept of private charity does not register in the mind of a collectivist.

Yeah, we've done the whole "private charity" thing. It didn't work out all that well. The old poor houses and such. We can be against taxes and social programs and aid; but don't pretend that somehow "private charity" is going to be an answer. Been there, done that, measured system. Doesn't really work out well.

 

[TurtleDude]

Yeah, we've done the whole "private charity" thing. It didn't work out all that well. The old poor houses and such. We can be against taxes and social programs and aid; but don't pretend that somehow "private charity" is going to be an answer. Been there, done that, measured system. Doesn't really work out well.

that is because public charity has created an entire multi-generational class of public teat sucklers

 

[Ikari]

that is because public charity has created an entire multi-generational class of public teat sucklers

That doesn't take away from the fact that we've gone the "private charity" route before, we've seen how it went. It didn't work out.

 

[TurtleDude]

That doesn't take away from the fact that we've gone the "private charity" route before, we've seen how it went. It didn't work out.

has public charity decreased the number of dependents

 

[Ikari]

has public charity decreased the number of dependents

Public charity never worked out well when it was all we had. That's how we got stuck with poor houses and destitute.

There's no way that private charity by itself would ever be able to fully replace public assistance programs. Just won't happen. Shouldn't even pretend that it would. We've seen this already.

 

[TurtleDude]

Public charity never worked out well when it was all we had. That's how we got stuck with poor houses and destitute.

There's no way that public charity by itself would ever be able to fully replace public assistance programs. Just won't happen. Shouldn't even pretend that it would. We've seen this already.

do you think we have a need to constantly expand dependence on the government or try to reduce the number of dependents? subsidizing dependence certainly increases it

 

[Bullseye]

MAXINE WATERS: Committee chairmanship will be time for paybacks



MAXINE WATERS: Committee chairmanship will be time for paybacks - The American MirrorThe American Mirror

I hot the GOP grabs this and turns it into a massive "why to vote Republican" campaign ad. She's not just crazy, she's dangerous.

 

[Bullseye]

Well the one thing the Dems will not do is give tax cuts to the wealthy and then turn around and then say they need to make cuts in social security, Medicare and Medicaid because some idiots decided giving tax cuts to the wealthy was more important.

Problems with Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid have been coming for decades, tax cuts had nothing to do with them.

 

[Ikari]

do you think we have a need to constantly expand dependence on the government or try to reduce the number of dependents? subsidizing dependence certainly increases it

Should have read "private charity"

It's a tough system to consider. There's always going to be X number of people in need of assistance, and as population grows that number will grow too, so it's an X(t). Ideally, you want to be able to address the majority of the concerns/needs of X(t). I don't think that we necessarily need to "constantly expand dependence on government", though we do and not just for welfare. But reducing the number of dependents could mean finding a way to reduce X(t) or it could mean ignoring X(t). Private charity doesn't make less needy nor has it historically been able to provide the necessary levels of support and assistance.

It's easy to sit here and say "well people shouldn't be taxed, and we shouldn't have social programs in place to aid the poor and needy", but there's very little point to living in some delusion that somehow if you nixed all the government aid programs that somehow private charity alone would suffice. It won't, we've seen this already.

 

[Bullseye]

When the purpose of government becomes exacting revenge on ones political enemies it will be the responsibility of the people to rid themselves of that government by whatever means necessary.

Yeah, and the likelihood of Mad Maxine getting any of that crap through the House, Senate and the White House is zilch.

 

[TurtleDude]

Should have read "private charity"

It's a tough system to consider. There's always going to be X number of people in need of assistance, and as population grows that number will grow too, so it's an X(t). Ideally, you want to be able to address the majority of the concerns/needs of X(t). I don't think that we necessarily need to "constantly expand dependence on government", though we do and not just for welfare. But reducing the number of dependents could mean finding a way to reduce X(t) or it could mean ignoring X(t). Private charity doesn't make less needy nor has it historically been able to provide the necessary levels of support and assistance.

It's easy to sit here and say "well people shouldn't be taxed, and we shouldn't have social programs in place to aid the poor and needy", but there's very little point to living in some delusion that somehow if you nixed all the government aid programs that somehow private charity alone would suffice. It won't, we've seen this already.

I don't agree with all of that but its well reasoned

 

[Bullseye]

You guys didn't seem to mind when the revenge was enacted by Republicans and Trump against Obama policies. I do believe many cons said they wanted to wipe out Obama's legacy. That is revenge right there, but that's ok right since it is against Obama huh?

"Revenge"? More like reversing bad policies.

 

[Sabre]

Brett Kavanugh: "what goes around comes around"

You don't care when what you see as your side makes threats, so spare us the derpy crocodile tears and hilariously fake outrage.

No outrage or tears, just humor, irony and the hypocrisy of the left, she is proposing what you libs rail against but it's OK if a lib is doing it.

 

[Cardinal]

MAXINE WATERS: Committee chairmanship will be time for paybacks



MAXINE WATERS: Committee chairmanship will be time for paybacks - The American MirrorThe American Mirror

Projection. Governance by retribution (and trolling) has been Republican policy for the last two years.

 

[Atheist 2020]

4 + 2 = 6

 

[Sabre]

Projection. Governance by retribution (and trolling) has been Republican policy for the last two years.

I would rephrase it as this: Governance by correction has been Trumps policy for the last two years. I do not say Republican because most of the old guard Republicans became spineless, only interested in holding on to their seats so when challenged by the left, rather than stand up, they turned into RINO's.

 

[Cardinal]

I would rephrase it as this: Governance by correction has been Trumps policy for the last two years. I do not say Republican because most of the old guard Republicans became spineless, only interested in holding on to their seats so when challenged by the left, rather than stand up, they turned into RINO's.

Governance by correction is what Democrats will be doing, as well as governance of the law. Republicans only know governance of retribution and trolling anymore.